Julian Reschke wrote:
>
> Geoffrey M Clemm wrote:
>
>>
>> The proposed additional text is fine with me, although I'd probably
>> delete the phrase "which in turn should define how the property value
>> behaves", since I believe it is redundant.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Geoff
>
>
> Good point. New proposed text
> (<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-bind-latest.html#rfc.section.2.6>):
>
>
> "2.6. PROPFIND and Bindings
>
> Consistent with [RFC2518], the value of a dead property MUST be
> independent of the number of bindings to its host resource or of the
> path submitted to PROPFIND. On the other hand, the behaviour for each
> live property depends on its individual definition (for example, see
> [RFC3744], section 5, paragraph 2)."
>
> Best regards, Julian
There's a deadline for Internet Draft submissions next Monday. To make
sure that all WGLC'd drafts have up-to-date versions published before
the IETF meeting in Paris, I'll submit this version before the end of
this week. (so if somebody disagrees with this change, please speak up
soon!).
Best regards, Julian